Rape is probably the crime where very few
thinking people have nothing to say; most have an opinion. On that basis magistrates are no different
from others. The guidance issued by the
CPS earlier this week seeks to increase the conviction rate for this offence; a conviction rate which is lower for sexual offences than other groups of indictable offences. Between 2003 and 2013 the conviction rate for sexual offences increased from 46% to 58%. There are probably as many
opinions on all aspects of this crime as on most others put together. This is hardly surprising. The most natural human urge, allowed to find
its outlet with little hindrance over millennia, has gradually been brought
within the justice system of most nations over the last few hundred years. However even today there are societies where
it is extremely difficult if not impossible to secure conviction for this crime
such are the impediments erected by the legal,
cultural or religious overlords
in such societies. It is essential to
differentiate between numbers of rapes reported to the authorities and figures
for actual convictions. Misleading statistics muddy the waters of this controversial topic. At one extreme conviction rates in Russia, China and Japan are around 90% or higher. In
Sweden much is made of the number of reported rapes and the low conviction rates. There
is a very strong argument that the type of society in which this offence is
committed is an indicator of the likely conviction rate. India
and Pakistan are examples.
This post is not to argue about statistics. My impression after many years absorbing
all the many changes to our justice system which reach right down to the lower
court is that the target to increase conviction rates has quite rightly tightened
up procedures which allowed offenders to escape their due deserts. But I feel that we are in great danger in
throwing out the innocent baby with the
target bathwater in this regard. Those accused
of rape are now to some degree being required to prove their innocence. How long before this philosophy is applied to
other offences?
Is this perhaps a good example of the importance of a jury based trial system where collective common sense can be brought to bear
ReplyDelete